pres debate #2 (Page 7)

A lot of people don't grasp two simple facts:

1. With the budget deficit that we have and the economy that we have, balancing the budget is virtually impossible, as is the reasoning to do so.  NEITHER would be able to balance the budget in 4 years.  No one could.
2. The government is NOT a business.  It's not meant to generate a profit.  It's not meant to maintain a surplus.  It doesn't "maximize shareholder value".  Citizens are not investors.  A government that runs in the black has a country with a very bad economy and a very bad social environment.  Ask any educated economist what would happen if the deficit were totally wiped out and the government took in more tax revenue than it paid out.

By the way, does anyone know if the FBI has been allowed into the Benghazi compound yet?

Deficit under Bush over 8 years= $4T.

Deficit under Obama over 4 years = $4T.

4/8= .5

4/4=1

Maybe you mean the last 4 years of GWB, 2 of which were with the Pelosi Congress and Reid Senate.

I'm not the president or involved in his administration so how could I explain why they do what they do?

I'm sure he's covering his butt because he knows he will get pounded on it by his opponents, no matter what he did/didn't do, whether it was right or wrong. 

Let me rephrase then;

According to your interpretation of what Obama said the day after he said it was a terrorist attack.

Why in your opinion do you think Obama, his Press Secretary and the UN Ambassador spent the next week or longer saying that all the evidence they had was that it was due to some protest and a video?

I would like to see you try to get more than three "educated" economists to agree on this.

Easy, give them all of the same assumptions

It doesn't "maximize shareholder value". 

A lot of people don't grasp two simple facts:

1. With the budget deficit that we have and the economy that we have, balancing the budget is virtually impossible, as is the reasoning to do so.  NEITHER would be able to balance the budget in 4 years.  No one could.
2. The government is NOT a business.  It's not meant to generate a profit.  It's not meant to maintain a surplus.  It doesn't "maximize shareholder value".  Citizens are not investors.  A government that runs in the black has a country with a very bad economy and a very bad social environment.  Ask any educated economist what would happen if the deficit were totally wiped out and the government took in more tax revenue than it paid out.

Went to one of the most elite private schools in Indoniesia. Went to the most elite private school in Hawaii. Graduated from Columbia University.... then just decided he needed a law degree to get anywhere and went to Harvard. Married his wife who was also a Harvard Law grad. In fact his dad was a Harvard Grad. Wrote a book, became a millionaire. Will never worry about another penny.... but ya.... me and him are two peas in a pod... just two regular guys from around the block.

I can't stand elitists pretending they are not elitists.

Are you kidding me, didn't you just read how he and his family took free stuff from the government. That's as hypocritical as what Paul Ryan did getting Stimulus Money for his constituents, this fiscal conservative he is trying to represent doesn't match his actions.

You can't have it both ways Josh.

WHY can't it be both ways?

Are you saying in order to be a true "Fiscal Conservative" it is impossible to support ANY govt. funded assistance program?  Student Loans?  Veteran's Affairs?  Social Security?

That isn't Conservatism; it's Right-Wing Extremism.  Gov. Romney's sudden resurgence in the polls can be attributed to his policy pivot (or 'flop' ) back to the Center of the electorate views.  This is a clear indicator that OVERALL the electorate shares (and probably always will), a slighty right, to moderate voting opinion.   I liked GOV Romney, much as I liked SENATOR McCain.  It's the enormous pull from the RIGHT that ruined (and will ruin) their chances of getting elected.   While the TV/radio ratings may be better for Conservatives than for Liberals, liberals know they can't move a candidate to the LEFT and get elected.  Conservatives haven't figured that out yet.  I think all of us here on BT, who enjoy the outdoors can at least agree that some traditional 'lefty' ideas (protecting the enviroment) have merit.

The notion that a Liberal can't believe in a strong, well funded military or a Conservative can't be Pro Life, yet still support a woman's right to choose is absurd.   By trying to broadstroke the entire country into Left OR Right, Liberal OR Conservative, Republican OR Democrat, Rich OR Poor-THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH THIS, our GOVT.

"Nobody puts Lefty/Righty in a corner"

Sorry Jeff, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. He's no more of a hypocrite than Ryan was for getting stimulus money for one of his constituents. Josh and Ryan's constituent both are playing by the rules and taking advantage of government programs that are available to them.

But nice job on turning this into a Romney is a flip flopper and can't be trusted response.

Are you being paid by the DNC?

LOL.....OhhhhhKaaaayyy....got me on that one.  But YOU said he couldn't be trusted, not me.

btw: I'm NOT being paid, but feel free to send a check to...

JeffnBoise, c/o Obama/Biden 2012, 1600 Penn. Av., Washington DC, USA

And, please.  Give Generously! 

Talk about spin. Wow.

WHY can't it be both ways?

Are you saying in order to be a true "Fiscal Conservative" it is impossible to support ANY govt. funded assistance program?  Student Loans?  Veteran's Affairs?  Social Security?

That isn't Conservatism; it's Right-Wing Extremism.  Gov. Romney's sudden resurgence in the polls can be attributed to his policy pivot (or 'flop' ) back to the Center of the electorate views.  This is a clear indicator that OVERALL the electorate shares (and probably always will), a slighty right, to moderate voting opinion.   I liked GOV Romney, much as I liked SENATOR McCain.  It's the enormous pull from the RIGHT that ruined (and will ruin) their chances of getting elected.   While the TV/radio ratings may be better for Conservatives than for Liberals, liberals know they can't move a candidate to the LEFT and get elected.  Conservatives haven't figured that out yet.  I think all of us here on BT, who enjoy the outdoors can at least agree that some traditional 'lefty' ideas (protecting the enviroment) have merit.

The notion that a Liberal can't believe in a strong, well funded military or a Conservative can't be Pro Life, yet still support a woman's right to choose is absurd.   By trying to broadstroke the entire country into Left OR Right, Liberal OR Conservative, Republican OR Democrat, Rich OR Poor-THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH THIS, our GOVT.

"Nobody puts Lefty/Righty in a corner"

I agree with your statements. I just don't think we, the public, know half of what went on, especially as it is being filtered through the MSM that everyone laments so frequently. 

I don't think either one of these guys have any real "credibility, truth, veracity" to speak of. My humble opinion is that you don't make it to the highest levels of power in this country with any of those qualities. You don't raise $1 billion because you are credible or honest. You do it because you are selling yourself out to anyone and everyone who will pay you. Then you of course pay them back once you are in office.

Agreed!  If they're talkin', They're lyin'!  (My plan for all future presidential debates.  The candidates are hooked up to polygraphs with giant readouts above their heads.  Every time a lie is registered, they get a shock.  The shocks get progressively stronger with each successive lie told.)